"This Might Also Be Helpful...Or Not" Topic

‘That Devil Gribeauval'

I would heartily concur with the recommendation of using Pierre Nardin's biography of Gribeauval, Gribeauval: Lieutenant general des armees du roi (1715-1789). It is the most up to date biography on the famous French artilleryman. I would also highly recommend, if anyone is interested in the subject, Howard Rosen's PHD thesis for the University of Chicago, ‘The Systeme Gribeauval: A Study of Technological Development and Institutional Change in Eighteenth Century France.' In conjunction with these two works, Ken Alder's Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815 is essential reading for the period in general on the artillery developments in France and for the Gribeauval System in particular. For background material Frederic Naulet's L'Artillerie Francaise (1665-1765) Naissance d'Une Arme is also an essential work. All of these works were created with much use of original archival material and are quite valuable in any research effort of the period. Without reading these works an understanding of what the French artillery arm became from 1763 onwards is very difficult and a good picture of what Gribeauval did accomplish would be incomplete, if not missed entirely. There are other works that also need to be read and I will list some of those at the end of the posting for anyone who is interested.

There have been comments made about what Gribeauval didn't do or didn't do well from time to time. Seems to me that is trying to prove a negative, which in itself is an historical fallacy, as you cannot prove a negative (as well as an ad hominem attack or two from time to time). What should be done in any discussion on Gribeauval is to discuss what he did do and accomplish. What should be attempted is the process of historical inquiry-assembling facts that can lead either an author or the reader to form an historical conclusion. The terms ‘myth' and ‘truth' ought to be left out of the discussions for the operating definitions of those two terms have been so misused and misconstrued through myriad postings and arguments that both terms have largely lost their original meanings. Now they are merely used to flay either an historical figure or an author and are generally good for not much else. Lastly, I haven't seen, however, anyone exaggerate about Gribeauval's accomplishments in designing and implementing the Gribeauval System post-1765, nor has there been anyone ‘guilty of needless aggrandizement.' There has, however, been much error, and much of that gross error, posted about Gribeauval by those attempting to detract from the man's achievements.

Gribeauval himself was a school-trained artilleryman, a graduate of La Fere. He was not, as he has sometimes be portrayed, a ‘siege operations officer' (a term I am not familiar with-the two savant arms in the French army were the artillery and the engineers. An officer that belonged to either arm would be an ‘artillery officer' or an ‘engineer officer' respectively. Gribeauval was definitely the former). Commissioned into the artillery, Gribeauval did command a miner company as a captain-an assignment usually given at that time to an artillery officer, not an engineer officer, as the miners belonged to the artillery arm. Gribeauval did earn a reputation as an artillery innovator before 1752, having designed a new garrison gun carriage as well as a new ammunition caisson. His inspection trip to Prussia in 1752, where he met and talked to Frederick the Great, allowed him to witness for himself the light Prussian field pieces (he would take plans for these, and later for the Austrian field pieces, back to France to construct and test-see DeScheel). These tests, as well as seeing the Prussian and Austrian field pieces for himself would influence him in designing his own system when he returned to France after serving with the Austrians during the Seven Years' War. However, his new field pieces, gun carriages, and ancillary equipment were not copies of either the Prussian and Austrian guns and equipment. They were new designs, and the production standards, quality, and tolerances were monitored down to the inch (the artillery under Gribeauval's reorganization contained 177 artillery officers whose job was to monitor production of the artillery and supervise all construction and quality control).

Gribeauval fought in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and was seconded to the Austrian Army, at their request, as they were short of qualified artillery and engineer officers. Famous for his contributions to the defense of Schweidnitz late in the war (here the Prussian commander referred to him as ‘that devil Gribeauval'), he was promoted for efficiency to general officer's rank and awarded the Order of Maria Theresa for gallantry in action. While in Austria he gained first-hand knowledge of the Lichtenstein System of artillery and was considered an equal by his Austrian colleagues not only for his gallantry and skill, but for his knowledge of artillery.

Jean du Teil, whose De l'usage de l'artillerie nouvelle dans la guerre de campagne was the primary doctrinal document of the French artillery through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, stated that Gribeauval had ‘rendered the artillery more scientific.' Jean-Gabriel Roquerol, author of L'artillerie au debut des Guerres de la Revolution declared that the ‘systeme Gribeauval was as perfect a work as is humanly possible.' In his Notes of French Ordnance 1717-1936 James Hicks categorically stated that ‘Judged by his work, taken as a whole, Gribeauval was the greatest reformer, certainly in the material, probably in the personnel, the artillery world has ever seen.' Albert Drury in L'armee royale en 1789 that only the great military engineer ‘has left a work comparable to that of Gribeauval.'

Howard Rosen in his work stated that ‘Often obscured by the large number of changes it introduced, was the fact that the systeme Gribeauval was a genuine system, a thoroughly integrated blend of organizational principles, tactical ideas, and technology. Gribeauval conceived of the artillery as a system in which each part was designed in functional relation to the whole. Men and material were both viewed instrumentally, as elements of the system. From the details of equipment to its social organization, every aspect of the systeme Gribeauval was designed to achieve a specific purpose: to create an artillery force with sufficient mobility to participate actively in offensive field operations.'

The Gribeauval System addressed new advances in technology, especially in metallurgy. His partner in this effort was Jean Maritz who efficiently ran the French production facilities and who developed the solid casting method for gun tube production and the precision boring procedure that gave the gun tubes a more solid construction and the bore drilled along the center line, something that could not be done with older casting methods. I have found no evidence, though, that Maritz designed the Gribeauval field pieces, that belongs to Gribeauval. The new casting methods gave the French field pieces that were ‘a killing machine, somber and efficient' (Matti Lauerma, L'artillerie de campagne Francais pendant les Guerres de la Revolution). Jean Colin stated that ‘Gribeauval gave France a truly offensive artillery…an essential arm in the Napoleonic victories.'

New tools, such as the newer and quite modern etoile mobile, designed and constructed along Gribeauval's guidelines, enabled the diameter of the gun tube to be ‘verified within .001 inches.' This allowed for less windage, the tolerance of which was equally as stringent for the three calibers of the field pieces. The introduction of the iron axle, and brass housings for the wheels, greatly enhanced mobility which was a guiding factor in the new system: ‘…mobility, the true end, the essential end of all these important changes.' (DeScheel) The new design for gun carriages took into account that recoil was not only a backward motion, but also downward. Ammunition tolerances were equally as stringent, and the ‘go' and ‘no go' gauges are evidence of this.

Rosen also states, and sums up the artillery system as something greater than its individual parts: ‘The most important historical change which the systeme Gribeauval introduced cannot be found in any single detail, or in any one of the many shifts in underlying conceptions of artillery, war, technology, or society. The most significant innovation one sees in the systeme Gribeauval was that it was indeed a system: a thorough synthesis of organization, technology, material, and tactics. Every aspect of the system, from the harnessing of the horses to the selection and organization of personnel, embodied a single functional concept. Utility was its principle, mobility was its goal. Every element of the systeme Gribeauval was designed to function in a particular way, in a particular circumstance. Men and technology were considered functional elements in a total system. The date, 1776, of the final official acceptance of the systeme Gribeauval, marked an important stage in the development of modern military institutions, as well as in the social relations of technology. Form followed function in the organization of the systeme Gribeauval. From the overall structure to its specific details, the design of social aspects of the new system embodied the principles of utility, efficiency, and precision.'

Two aspects of artillery were not addressed functionally by Gribeauval-a militarized artillery train and horse artillery. The former would be done by Napoleon in 1800-an efficient organization, foremost in Europe. With one exception, even deep in Russia, the Grande Armee never ran out of ammunition. The exception was Leipzig when artillery ammunition started to run short. That was because the army's trains had been cut off north of Leipzig in Eilenberg. The latter organization was finally formed in 1792 and became an efficient combat arm and arguably the best horse artillery arm in Europe. When asked why he didn't form a French horse artillery, Gribeauval replied: ‘You witness the difficulties and enemies which my endeavors to destroy ancient prejudices have raised against me; at a future period we may execute your plan; digest and improve upon it; for the present it would be asking too much.'

Here are some of the books that might be helpful in trying to understand Gribeauval, the artillery system he created, and what it did and became, as well as the different parts of the system that added up to an impressive whole. I highly recommend all of them.
Alder, Ken, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763-1815, Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 1997.
Artz, Frederick, The Development of Technical Education in France (1500-1800), MIT, 1966.
Becke, AF, Friedland, Journal of the Royal Artillery, no date.
Boulart, Bon, Memoires Militaires du General Bon Boulart sur les Guerres de La Republique et de L'Empire, Paris, La Librarie Illustree, nd.
Bowden, Scott, Napoleon's Grande Armee of 1813, The Emperor's Press, Chicago, 1990.

Carnet de la Sabretache, Volume 3, Paris 1895, ‘Le 7e Corps a Eylau', page 3.

_____, Volume 4, 1896, 'Bataille d'Eylau,' page 81.

_____, Volume 5, 1897, ‘Bataille de Friedland (Journal d'operations du 1st corps de la Grande Armee'), page 325

Davis, Robert P., Where a Man Can Go: Major General William Phillips, British Royal Artillery, 1731-1781, Greenwood Press, London, 1999.

Downey, Fairfax, Cannonade, Doubleday & Company, New York, 1966.

Du Teil, Jean, The New Use of Artillery in Field Wars: Necessary Knowledge, The Nafziger Collection, 2003.

Girod de l'Ain, Maurice, Grands Artilleurs: Drouot, Senarmont, Eble, Paris, 1895.

Graves, Donald E., Editor, De Scheel's Treatise on Artillery, translated by Jonathan Williams, Museum Resoration Service, 1984.

Griffith, Paddy, The Art of War of Revolutionary France, Greenhill, London, 1998.

Hennebert, Gribeauval, Lieutenant-General des Armees du Roy, Paris, 1896.

Lauerma, Matti, L'Artillerie de Campagne Francaise Pendant les Guerres de la Revolution: Evolution de l'Organization et de la Tactique, Helsinki 1956.

Nardin, Pierre, Gribeauval Lieutenant General des Armees du Roi (1715-1789), Paris, nd.

Quimby, Robert, The Background of Napoleonic Warfare, Columbia University Press.
Roquerol, G., L'Artillerie au Debut des Guerres de la Revolution, Paris 1898.
Rosen, Howard, The Systeme Gribeauval: A Study of Technological Development and Institutional Change in Eighteenth Century France, University of Chicago, 1981.
Werth, Albert, Josef Freiherrn von Smola, Wien 1905.

Yermelov, Alexy, The Czar's General: The Memoirs of a Russian General in the Napoleonic Wars, edited by Alexander Mikaberidze, Ravenhall, London, 2005.

Zhmodikov, Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, two volumes, The Nafziger Collection, 2003.

Nobody is expecting anyone to disprove a negative. it has become quite clear from the discussions surrounding the 1762 report, the bricole, the hausse sight and G's time in Austria that claims are being made, which are not true. In response to those claims, the 1762 report has been published and translated, the bricole has been shown in Austrian, Prussian and russian documents before G's time, the hausse sight is mentioned by de Coudray, who thanks G for "introducing" it and Duffy shows that G spent his time in Austria with the sappers.

All that is being asked is that the evidence underpinning the claims made about G is laid out in the same way, so we can establish what is documented and what is amde up. Some obvious things come to mind, so can you tell us what the evidence is for:

1) "Gribeauval did earn a reputation as an artillery innovator before 1752, having designed a new garrison gun carriage as well as a new ammunition caisson." The cxarriage is documented, but why not mention that it had to be rebuilt by Zimmermeister Reitner at Schweidnitz. What was the "innovation" in it? What about this ammunition carriage – is there a drawing or some description and how was it innovative?

2) "(he would take plans for these, and later for the Austrian field pieces, back to France to construct and test-see DeScheel). These tests". When and where did these tests take place and what conclusions were drawn from then – there should be some documentation.

3) "in designing his own system when he returned to France after serving with the Austrians". Where is this design? Note in particular that many authors yhou cite claim it is the 1762 report and that your own version of the Starssbourg tests only says that G agreed with the reduction in windage in those barrels. Where are the drawings, drafts, ideas, tests etc.

4) "They were new designs" – see 3. Why does the carriage look like the de valliere carriage in its shape?

5) "Gribeauval fought in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and was seconded to the Austrian Army, at their request, as they were short of qualified artillery and engineer officers. Famous for his contributions to the defense of Schweidnitz late in the war (here the Prussian commander referred to him as ‘that devil Gribeauval'), he was promoted for efficiency to general officer's rank and awarded the Order of Maria Theresa for gallantry in action. While in Austria he gained first-hand knowledge of the Lichtenstein System of artillery and was considered an equal by his Austrian colleagues not only for his gallantry and skill, but for his knowledge of artillery." We know from Duffy and Wurzbach that G spent all his time with the sappers. When did he fight with the artillery – please provide the supporting evidence.

6) " I have found no evidence, though, that Maritz designed the Gribeauval field pieces" – the reference is actually to the barrels, but no doubt the 1761 Royal Order to Maritz to lighten the barrels (documented on p.64 of DD&S) and the fact that your own version of the Starssbourg tests makes one ref to G in it, noting that he agreed with the reduction in windage, might help. Please produce the documentary evidence of anything G actually designed.

7) The opinions of various authors are all very interesting, but how do they prove anything, especially when it seems none of them have actually read the key 1762 report?

8) Where is the design for the "systeme Gribeauval"? When was it constructed and issued?

9) The statement and averaging of numbers to a precision of 1/1000th of an inch does not prove anything was capable of measuring it. Please provide technical details of the measuring implement so that we can establish its actual capability.

10) You have once again falsely stated the go/no go rings purpose – de Coudray states they were used at right angles to check the spherical nature of a ball with a tolerance of 0.07in. The mere existence of these rings establishes that windage could not be standard or fixed to 1/1000th in. Please provide the evidence to back any claim otherwise.

So, rather than the repetitions, mistranslations and third hand extrapolated claims, can we see the documentary evidence to back the above?

In particular, how many of these authors – Hennebert and Duffy aside – actually read and accurately describe the key 1762 report? It is a good and quick measure of whether their work is actually any good.

So, rather than the repetitions, mistranslations and third hand extrapolated claims, can we see the documentary evidence to back the above?

Wouldn't it just be easier at this point to embrace the period you are both devoted to and challnege Kevin to a duel? Leave who is right in God's hands. Of course it's not easy to stifle a duel…

Old Bear@ swords or pistols?:)

Bricoles at ten paces?

Old Bear

I think Kevin would agree to disagree and move on, as most good authors would, but sadly, I fear Mr. Hollins is totally incapable of doing so.

But since this is an artillery matter, then surely it should be cannons, not pistols?

Cannons, in the style of Blackadder the Third? LOL. That would be worth watching, although Timbo's idea of bricoles would be in keeping.

I suggest that this troll who is only repeating the same old line and his little helpers are ignored.

XV Brigada

Yes, good idea. Let's ignore Mr. Hollins and his little followers. Well said.

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nahnahnahnahnaaaaaaaaaa, …I can't hear you.

A duel would be perfect…

It would be glorious if they off'ed each other.

But that's only my opinion, …which is totally based on conjecture. FB

Kevin, Can I just make a few comments on such large post.

Gribeauval fought in the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and was seconded to the Austrian Army, at their request, as they were short of qualified artillery and engineer officers.

France fought against Austria in that war, so according to Nardin he was at Dettingen, 1743 and campaigned in Flanders under Noailles and Saxe, at the sieges of Courtrai, Menine, Ypres, Furnes, Gand, Alost, Bruges, Audenarde, Ostend, Nieuport, Bergen op Zoom and Maestricht, 1744-48
is there more documentation for this other then Nardin.

is there any documentation for his various ranks in this period? his first commission was 1735, sous-lieutenant? so he spent 3 years? at La Fere artillery school?

he was promoted for efficiency to general officer's rank and awarded the Order of Maria Theresa for gallantry in action.

My understanding is he was offered the rank of FML and the MTO if he continued in Austrian service, this was while he was in Prussian captivity, and was because of his successful defence of Schweidnitz in 1762, however he decided to return to France when released (France had already promoted him marechal de camp)
was it during his stay at Schweidnitz that he wrote the report (March 1762 or March 1763 when he got back to France)
He would have been at Schweidnitz well before August, till captured in October)
Is there any more information on this.

so it seems that he "did" hold a field command and saw action? If so then what leg does hollins have to stand on?

g was made a GM to give him access to Court and to deal with any opposition from those unhappy about a former enemy in theoir midst. He was awarded the MTO for his leadership of the sappers at Schweidnitz (and it is worth noting here that sapping was always an engineering function, joined in the 18th century by mining). The Hofkriegsrat asked G and Prince Charles of Lorraine to look into the overhaul of the engineering corps on 20th January 1760 (Duffy p.293). Curious really to second an alleged artilleryman, who was an expert artilleryman and then ask him to overhaul engineering, isn't it? G's response focused on the lack of sappers, although he ahd apparently been thinking about all this in 1759. He had gone to Austria as an Obrist (colonel) in the all officer Engineers corps – strange for a gunner?

Stephen Summerfield gives his WAS experience as "present at Dettingen" and then a series of sieges. PDF link By 1752, he was in the miners, nothing having been done with his 1749 carriage design (of which just one prototype was built). No mention of any ammunition carriage.

The sappers did see action, but there is no evidence that g went with them and he appears to have been in Vienna, when he wrote his report in March 1762. he then went to Schweidnitz, where he led the sappers, and then had both sides seeking his services, hence the offer of the rank of FML, although he got the MTO anyway.

'I think Kevin would agree to disagree and move on, as most good authors would, but sadly, I fear Mr. Hollins is totally incapable of doing so.'

John,

I completely agree-good post and we need to move on.

Sincerely,
Kevin

again, say goodnight Gracie

Kevin

I fear sadly that Mr. Hollins just doesn't hear what people are saying. They are obviously becoming bored with his continuing grudge war postings, which he keeps repeating anywhere he can, as they probably are with all posts related to them.

"Kevin
I fear sadly that Mr. Hollins just doesn't hear what people are saying. They are obviously becoming bored with his continuing grudge war postings, which he keeps repeating anywhere he can, as they probably are with all posts related to them"

Gazzola, I agree that most people are bored, however not sure why you single out Hollins in your criticism as he wasn't the one who started this particular thread?

Why not use a slur, when a rational discussion of the material is beyond you? This "agree to disagree" nonsense is just designed to let it all kick off agaion some time in the future, when yet again, the two "reviewers" will be asked to produce the evidence to support their claims and will run away to Amazon to write their bile.

All I am asking these two and particularly Kevin to do is to produce the evidence that backs their claims. If they can, there might eb some substance to their "reviews" – if they cannot, perhaps they will desist from theior behaviour.

Its all a matter of personal opinions after all.

M

On the whole, on reflection, "Or Not", I'd say.

badwargamer

There should have been no need for further threads and posts and there wouldn't be if Mr. Hollins could only do what good authors do and move on. But, for some bizarre reason, he appears incapable of doing so. If he stop moaning and repeating himself, I'm sure the threads and posts will stop and everyone can move on.

I suggest that this troll who is only repeating the same old line and his little helpers are ignored.

You learn well, at your master's heel. Soon you will be as unpoular as he is.

Why not use a slur, when a rational discussion of the material is beyond you? This "agree to disagree" nonsense is just designed to let it all kick off agaion some time in the future, when yet again, the two "reviewers" will be asked to produce the evidence to support their claims and will run away to Amazon to write their bile.

Kevin might at times argue with you for the sake of it but at least his posts don't reek of unpleasantness and hypocrisy.

Badwargamer,

You are right. There are I think three groups. Those who are the converted if you like, who have read the posts and come to a conclusion, and those who don't really care in the first place.

Then there is Kevin Kiley whose credibility has been somewhat dented over recent threads but persists with his repetitive posts which resurrect the very weak argument based on largely secondary material he lost some time ago.
I have seen this on and off here on TMP over the past several years I have visited and I understand that it is not confined to this forum.

He is seconded by his little band of helpers who are evidently unable to make a sensible contribution, whose sole motive seems to be to disrupt every thread where Mr Hollins appears and interject with their toxic posts which add nothing to the proceedings.

"Or Not" is about right as far as this thread is concerned but it is not a matter of opinion but rather the refusal by Mr Kiley to accept that half a dozen secondary sources really don't cut the mustard.

Bill

Dave Hollins

Slur? Agree to disgaree nonsense? That proves you are out of touch with reality. It also proves you have no intention of moving on.

After all, they were two Amazon reviews, Mr. Hollins. You should not have let them upset you so much. And really, get real, you know you don't need 'evidence' to write an Amazon review, you just need your 'opinion' as a customer, as to why you like or dislike a title, in which you can highlight any positive or negative aspects that are generally not mentioned in pre-sales hype.

And I'm sure the two customer reviews won't damage your career or reputation. You're doing fine in that area all by yourself, especially in writing a 5 star Vanity Review and refusing to let things go.

If he stop moaning and repeating himself, I'm sure the threads and posts will stop and everyone can move on.

You don't do irony then?

Connard sage

Perhaps you could stop posting on the topic, since it only seems to encourage him to continue. Shame on you!

Bill,

You actually don't have any idea what you're talking about. Have you read the source material that I have listed? If you take a look at it, it is a combination of both primary and secondary sources and apparently, you don't have any idea which is which. Your petty comments and personal ad hominem nonsense is getting a little old.

K

Connard…hehehe…it would appear not!

Having the last (repeated word), continually insulting Mr H by saying 'a good author would' and saying 'move on' whilst not being able to move on himslef…he can do.

So irony…no.

badwargamer

Do try getting your facts right. While Kevin Kiley and myself and other members I have posted with, can agree to disagree on matters, Mr. Hollins thinks the idea of agreeing to disagree is nonsense. That means, sadly, he won't or perhaps, for whatever reason, can't move on.

And yet it is not rocket science, is it? If he stops posting the reply posts will stop. And that goes for his followers. And talking about posting, for some reason you felt you had to make yet another post, while complaining about others making posts! Why is that? Are you unable to move on as well?

I believe the challenged has the right to choose weapons, not the challenger. Since no one can seem to find original reference sources in Croatian as to who challenged whom, and it seems more importantly, when, then we have a Mexican Stand-off. It's like the cold war -everyone on the brink and skirmishing through proxies though no collapse of one side or the other yet. Soviet Union took a good 50 years we'll see how long this one lasts – don't see any raproachment or perestroika/glasnost here.

Gazz

While Kevin Kiley and myself and other members I have posted with, can agree to disagree on matters

Thats nice, so you post together, what 'matters' are you talking about? French staffs or Gribeauval or artillery matters?

Kevin

I have seen this so many times from you

1. You post some statement of 'fact' or post a critical review of someones work.

2. somebody challenges you about your 'fact'

3. you reply after a while with a list of books you have read, or some 'definition' of something, or he says so and he is a excellent author so he must be right.

4. somebody repeats the challenge you didn't answer

5. you say i have supplied the 'evidence' (the list of books)and you don't know what you are talking about.

6. somebody repeats the challenge you didn't answer

7. you reply lets agree to disagree, or lets move on, or I have listed my books, look it up yourself or look at my qualifications, i must be right

8. somebody get very frustrated

9. after a few months delay go back to 1.

All sound very familiar?

What happened on the NSF? you eventually revealed where you got your 'fact' from, others checked for themselves, turns out your 'fact' was a badly translated book, and the 'fact' went ** in a poof of smoke!

Stephen Summerfield produced an excellent bit of research on Gribeauval, do you agree?

As for the name siege-engineer, its still wrong, and is obviously said to wind you up (and me)but so far there is zero evidence of him actually involved with field artillery in a campaign or battle, all that ever comes up is his siege work (Dettingen still may be a possibility, but not a very strong one)

I have not seen anything about him commanding Austrian artillery even at Schweidnitz as you state.

Still hopeful something will come up.

Graf B,

Nicely summed up if I may say so. The gang of four it seems.

Bill

Graf Bretlach

Agreeing on matters doesn't necessarily relate to this thread or even this website. It does however relate to Napoleonic topics. And I have agreed and disagreed with other posters on this site, as I have already stated. The difference is that they agreed to disagree. They accepted my point of view as I accepted theirs. Mr. Hollins won't accept any point of view except his own. That is the difference.

And really, to say something as pathetic as 'that's nice, so you post together'. What a cheap shot. You could say the same about Hollins and his followers. And both myself and Kevin do not have to reply to anyone's post, should we not wish to. Hollins does it all the time.

To be honest, I think it REALLY is time we ALL moved on.

Gazz, if you have nothing to say on ‘That Devil Gribeauval'by the OP then maybe you should move on.

Dave Hollins, myself and others agree you should.

Perhaps I'm being a bit thick, but is this not essentially a debate about who had the second-best artillery system of the Napoleonic Wars?

The best system was the British Congreve single-block trail, as witness the fact that everybody else eventually adopted it. The carriages were lighter and more robust, the guns could be unlimbered and fired without altering the barrel position, British artillermen were more sexually successful than other artillerymen and Bruce Quarrie gives the RHA a fire factor of 3 whereas nobody else gets more than 2. QED.

Meanwhile, at some distance behind, we have a bitter struggle for second and third place.

Excellent point and one that is generally overlooked.

However, the block trail was not introduced until the 1790s and Adye was complaining that the British artillery was not actually a 'system' ca 1800.

British artillerymen have always been excellent, so it is with the arm in general. The school at Woolwich was also excellent and world class. The biggest problem with the British artillery arm was that there wasn't much of it. In the Peninsula the excellent Portuguese artillery arm made up for a lot, and the RHA was a corps d'elite.

One interesting comment that the British made in North America after the savage battles along the Niagara frontier about the excellent service in combat given by the American artillery was that 'we thought you were French.'

Sincerely,
K

Why? Did they smell of garlic?

Graf Bretlach

The whole point is that there are different opinions on Gribeauval and while one side (Kevin Kiley) will accept the views of the other, the other (Dave Hollins) won't accept anything unless it agrees with his views.

Kevin has tried again and again and been a gentleman about it, even on the Amazon comments sections, where Hollins extended his grudge war against him.

They should both agree to disagree, as many knowledgeable people have done over the years. But again, one will and one won't. So perhaps it should be the one who won't and his followers who should try moving on.

This is my last posting in this thread. Why, because I can move on. Let's see if others can do the same?

Why? Did they smell of garlic?

No, they lost. (B'doom tish).

You've been a wonderful audience. I'm here all week.

4th – No, it is not about the "best" as the French had two! The question is actually about two other things – 1) is what we are told actually correct or a lot of myth to big up one side and 2) who is actually responsible for the step-change in artillery at war, namely the provision of larger weapons than a pop gun in a field action, so that artilelry became a potent weapon on the battlefield from N up to 1918 reallly.

The thing about (1) is that the experience of many, who have dug into any Napoleonic subject, is that the popular story is not actually true and is often a myth become Ruling Theory through unchallenged repetition. The truth in this case is almost nothing claimed about Gribeauval is actually true and the two key pillars – the 1762 report and 1792 Tables do not show what is claimed.

For (2), given the myths and false claims, it seems that the credit for the step-change in artillery must go to Lichtenstein, who did devise a comprehensive system, which started or included nearly all of the innovations claimed as so important and "invented" by G. In contrast, what we have with G is that the barrel changes were already underway, the carriages are old style (no-one copied them) strapped down in L style. caissons, which were too heavy, paper ammo cartridges, etc. etc.

And we're off.

Again.

Gentlemen, place your bets

It has devolved into a contest to see which is more annoying: Dave's obsessive stridency, or Kevin's looney Mini-Me cheering squad.

Kevin's tactic has generally been to just keep Dave talking. Nobody can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like Dave. He can be right on every point, but lose on form, with self-inflicted wounds smoldering all over.

Kevin just pushes Dave's button every now and then, and gets out of the way. The upshot is something on the order of: "Look how annoying my opponent is! Obviously, I must therefore be right."

If Kevin could lose the kamikaze fan club, he'd seal the deal. They're as strident as Dave, arguably much crazier, and there's more of them!

Then all we'd need to know is WHY two guys who aren't wargamers have chosen a wargaming site as their Armageddon. (Or for that matter, why a British lawyer and an American middle-school teacher have spent ten years trashing each other over a rivalry about footnotes.)

Perhaps a wargaming site is just a natural forum for this sort of thing. Where else can you find a congregation of middle-aged men who are already so committed to devoting a lot of time to things that most of humanity finds incomprehensible and/or embarrassing?

Sam,

That's the best summary of these flame wars I've read yet.

Rick

Mammals Suck,

I agree with almost everything you've said. Every time Kevin Kiley posts the repetitive stuff as he has at the top of this thread Dave Hollins rises to the bait. It is transparently obvious what Kiley is up to. Hollins should either ignore him or just post something to the effect of 'You said this before – you are still wrong – see my previous response on the subject' rather than react as he does with long rebuttal's, and leave the Gang of Four to get on with it.

I would think that anybody with a couple of brain cells whether they think Hollin's over-eggs his omelette or not will have noted by now that Killey's argument is based on repeating the same fairly thin secondary stuff, pretty poor methodology and with it goes his credibility.

Why here? Well, because they can I suppose. What harm does it do anybody? I don't mind. I'm on the other side of middle-aged and have learned to 'suffer fools' with near indifference and nobody forces me to read any of it.

On the other hand I find a lot of what Hollin's posts interesting, usually thoughtful and quite compelling.

Bill

Every time Kevin Kiley posts the repetitive stuff as he has at the top of this thread Dave Hollins rises to the bait. It is transparently obvious what Kiley is up to. Hollins should either ignore him or just post something to the effect of 'You said this before – you are still wrong – see my previous response on the subject' rather than react as he does with long rebuttal's, and leave the Gang of Four to get on with it.

Lol, then you are reading something I am not. All I see is hollins harping on about this 1762 report over and over and over and over again and again, non-stop year after year after year in some kind of fanatical never ending story. Kevin on the other hand pretty much stays right out of it for long periods of time only stepping in once he has had enough.

It is easy to sit their and pass judgements on others and classify them as "fools" on the Internet. But are you a psychologist? When you reason with yourself that others are fools and saying so you are trying to show people you are not in the same category. You are trying to reason to yourself why you are not placed in the same basket and you want others to notice that, but I am here to assure you, calling or insinuating that others are fools does not exclude that person from being one himself…

I could post the exact same thing as you just did Bill, I also am past the middle aged group and consider myself no fool but I am not going to lower myself to suggest that others are so that I feel better about my posts…

XV Brigada

I didn't really want to post again, but since you find the posts of 'grudge-war' Hollins 'interesting, usually thoughtful and quite compelling', perhaps you can explain why he does not reply to posts that point out his 'compelling' posts contradicts what he writes in his own books?

Gazz, yeah of course you didn't :/

I have to agree with Bill, the posts by Dave are usually interesting, at least they make you think and question your own opinions, and are normally based on some substance and analysis of his research.

I'm not sure why people complain about the 'discussions' here on the Napoleonic boards, as others have said you don't have to read it, unlike the NSF where a big discussion would dominate the screen, here on TMP its one line on the list of threads, and a very quiet and boring place it would be without them.

This is an historical wargaming board, so a good mix of wargaming/history and fun topics is what we get, and long may it continue.

Gazzola……I'm sorry I couldn't resist another post after your comment
"This is my last posting in this thread. Why, because I can move on. Let's see if others can do the same?
"
which was followed by another post less than two hours later.
Oh, I wish there was a betting section on this site I could have made a mint on that one!
Ok, can you resist a post along the lines of…."I see you couldn't resist a post and can't move one, if everyone else does I will"……

Personally I was going to stay away from these posts but they are just toooooo funny